Jack Kelly's op-ed on the Ann Coulter CPAC controversy is worth a look, as he takes on not just Ann Coulter, but her many enablers on the right. I agree with what he wrote.

I did several radio interviews after my March 4 post, "Ann Coulter at CPAC," appeared on this blog. If anyone is interested, at least one of the radio outlets archived the interview, but I don't recommend listening if you expect to hear me say anything different than what I already said on this blog. It was a pretty short interview.

Reuters quoted this blog about the Coulter matter over the weekend, as did Cliff Kincaid of Accuracy in Media. Like Kelly, Kincaid questions the judgment of some of Coulter's enablers, and I recommend his essay.

Finally, among other emails, I received one from Jeff Gannon asking why I did not cite his blog's commentary on the Coulter matter among a list of blog posts I recommended to readers of this blog on March 4. Sorry, Jeff, but it's because I don't agree with you on this one.

Jeff wrote, in part:

Why is there a different standard for Ann Coulter? There were no repercussions when liberals produced a film about the assassination of George W. Bush and Cindy Sheehan wrote that she dreamed of traveling back in time to strangle the future president in his cradle. Liberals cheered when Bill Maher expressed disappointment that Vice President Dick Cheney wasn’t killed in the recent terrorist attack against him in Afghanistan.

While at the CPAC podium, Coulter was perceived by many to be acting as a representative of the conservative movement (as were those who applauded her, or laughed). If we do not correct this misperception, it will stand.

When Bill Maher and Cindy Sheehan speak, no one attributes their views to us.